least funny python to make shit documentary not worth watching

[somersetchris]

In his old age, Cleese seems to have forgotten how jokes work. In order to be a 'woke joke' it would have to be set up and punchline of some kind - even if he doesn't think it's funny it would still have a joke structure.

What he has done there is relate a brief imaginary conversation.

Edit: Apologies for the duplication, I thought I had read all the replies and missed a page.

Also agree this is very reminiscent of Bernard Right-On (or the previously better-named 'Born Again Bernard'), which was done 25 years ago and was actually funny. "A lesbian, a gay man and a black fella all walk into a pub. What a marvellous example of an integrated community". See FUNNY John, as it is in the form of a joke.

[frajer]

A horse walks into a bar.

The bartender says "I'm with you there, 100%."

[Autopsy Turvey]

I will be so glad when the likes of Cleese stop using a black American word for 'socially conscious' as an insult.

"I'd like to know why oh why oh why the word 'gay' has been so ruthlessly hijacked from our beloved English language".

I seem to remember Gilliam said shitty stuff about #MeToo but I'm sure AT thinks all those women were a bunch of stupid sluts who asked for it.

Of course you're sure of that, like you were sure I was an 'anti-vaxxer' on the basis of nothing at all, like you were sure I must be a fan of shit comedian Roy Chubby Brown because I didn't think he should be banned. 

[somersetchris]

Withdrawing your labour in protest at the treatment of a fellow speaker is pathetic?

You're trolling, right? I don't believe there is anyone who could think that Cleese has 'cancelled himself' for any reason other than to claim the woke mob have prevented him from speaking in his documentary. If he was interested in actual debate he would appear and make fools of them all, because wouldn't that make better television? But no, claiming you were not allowed to speak fits the narrative he has already decided to create.

I must say though, it's great that legendary unsurpassed geniuses like Cleese and Gilliam are still successfully needling self-absorbed sanctimonious zealots after all these years.

No, they ARE the sanctimonious zealots. They are the ones saying that people challenging the establishment are wrong and young people should be quiet because the status quo is fine. They are Malcolm Muggeridge.

[somersetchris]

Of course you're sure of that, like you were sure I was an 'anti-vaxxer' on the basis of nothing at all, like you were sure I must be a fan of shit comedian Roy Chubby Brown because I didn't think he should be banned.

Gilliam did come out against me too though, and I think he's got some pretty spicy opinions about trans people as well, but according to you he is an unsurpassed genius who is being provocative, not an out of touch old man who is shouting at clouds.

[Captain Z]

A horse walks into a bar.

"Why the long face?"

"I've just been reading John Cleese's tweets."

You're trolling, right?

Yes.

[neveragain]

A horse walks into a bar.

The bartender says "I'm with you there, 100%."

*wheezing cackle*

[Gurke and Hare]

Gilliam definitely thought that the child rapist Roman Polanski was being unfairly persecuted.

[Jake Thingray]

No, they ARE the sanctimonious zealots. They are the ones saying that people challenging the establishment are wrong and young people should be quiet because the status quo is fine. They are Malcolm Muggeridge.

True, but I'd add that even worse, Cleese has now become Richard Ingrams, who sniped at him for so long, and harbours the same delusions of being anti-establishment while in fact a crusty conservative.

[Kankurette]

AT, 1) I've blocked you so don't bother replying to me, you waste of skin and 2) what the fuck am I supposed to believe when you keep defending people like Chubby Brown and Cleese?

[Jumblegraws]

"I'd like to know why oh why oh why the word 'gay' has been so ruthlessly hijacked from our beloved English language".

Yet again you assert an equivalence without explanation. How the hell is the semantic shift of the word "gay" the same as the pejorative use of "woke"?

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Blocking AT will improve your life immeasurably. You don't need to concern yourselves with his thick, poisonous drivel.

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

Don't even engage, just imagine soothing white noise as you skim over their posts.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Oh what a feeling, like dancing on the ceiling.

[Jumblegraws]

Blocking AT will improve your life immeasurably. You don't need to concern yourselves with his thick, poisonous drivel.

Don't even engage, just imagine soothing white noise as you skim over their posts.

Good advice.

[g0m]

When I first started posting here I honestly thought they were doing a long-form fakeposting bit. And I still think that

[phantom_power]

No, they just like defending cunts because they share their abhorrent views, regardless of whether that defence is valid or consistent

[petril]

I blocked it ages ago

[Autopsy Turvey]

what the fuck am I supposed to believe when you keep defending people like Chubby Brown and Cleese?

Instead of jumping straight to the assumption that your interlocutor is a caricature of immoral villainy and repository of all the world's most evil opinions, why not try having a much harder think about it?

Yet again you assert an equivalence without explanation. How the hell is the semantic shift of the word "gay" the same as the pejorative use of "woke"?

Language changes, whether we like it or not, we can moan about it or get over it.

Blocking AT will improve your life immeasurably. You don't need to concern yourselves with his thick, poisonous drivel.

Seriously, I don't want to upset or offend anyone or compromise anyone's happiness, so if you're the sort of stunted inadequate who has a tantrum when someone pushes back against the simplistic safety-in-numbers statements that you've put no serious thought into, please block me, I only want to interact with adults who can regulate their emotions and defend their positions.

[The Crumb]

Seriously, I don't want to upset or offend anyone or compromise anyone's happiness, so if you're the sort of stunted inadequate who has a tantrum when someone pushes back against the simplistic safety-in-numbers statements that you've put no serious thought into, please block me, I only want to interact with adults who can regulate their emotions and defend their positions.

I'm the person that makes your voice heard, the person that will stop you from being a jerk and keep your position safe, and to put yourself at risk. It's okay to hurt, hurt, and hurt. If you're not an adult who thinks you're a jerk, make sure you're  respectful, respectful, and honest with your friends, or not.  I hope you like my point, and if you'd like to  help me understand why you're so upset, please help me by donating  your time.

[phantom_power]

Language changes, whether we like it or not, we can moan about it or get over it.

Yes, lets not question the reasons and motives behind those changes, and whether it is for progressive or regressive reasons, or if it is to be more or less inclusive. Let's just get over it

[Autopsy Turvey]

You're trolling, right?

This old chestnut. The number of people nowadays who think 'trolling' means 'disagreeing with me'.

I don't believe there is anyone who could think that Cleese has 'cancelled himself' for any reason other than to claim the woke mob have prevented him from speaking in his documentary.

This is tellingly phrased; you don't believe it's possible for anyone to perceive this issue differently from you? He's stepped down in protest about the treatment of a fellow speaker. I suspect he'd have done this if he didn't have a documentary looming, but then the reason he has a documentary looming is evidently because he's sick of this sort of shit.

If he was interested in actual debate he would appear and make fools of them all, because wouldn't that make better television? But no, claiming you were not allowed to speak fits the narrative he has already decided to create.

As soon as there's any evidence that John Cleese is claiming that he was not allowed to speak at an event that he was clearly being allowed to speak at, and that he's been banned by anyone other than himself, do please flag it up.

No, they ARE the sanctimonious zealots. They are the ones saying that people challenging the establishment are wrong and young people should be quiet because the status quo is fine. They are Malcolm Muggeridge.

You've looked around at 'the establishment' lately? He's at odds here with the Cambridge Union. Was the Cambridge Union "challenging the establishment" by putting a historian on a 'blacklist' for doing a light-hearted impersonation of Hitler?

Gilliam did come out against me too though, and I think he's got some pretty spicy opinions about trans people as well, but according to you he is an unsurpassed genius who is being provocative, not an out of touch old man who is shouting at clouds.

Saying he "came out against me too" is a bit simplistic. Was he shouting unbidden at clouds? Or do we only know his opinions on this because he was asked for them by a Vanity fucking Fair  journalist? So he replies off the cuff in his usual brash, scatty and ineloquent way, and then his disgusting fat old white opinions become the main story because the journalist is a muck raking culture war hack whose brief is to aggressively promote the one response to one irrelevant query that will trigger outrage among a small but highly vocal section of the Vanity fucking Fair readership. From then on in the eyes of sanctimonious moralising simpletons, Gilliam = Abhorrent Cunt. Well done everybody!

[Kankurette]

I only want to interact with people who aren't cunts.

PS I'm not the one having a tantrum. That would be Cleese.

[Autopsy Turvey]

I only want to interact with people who aren't cunts.

What the fuck are you doing here then!?

Yes, lets not question the reasons and motives behind those changes, and whether it is for progressive or regressive reasons, or if it is to be more or less inclusive. Let's just get over it

You can do those things if you like, but when you're talking about language change, it might all be equal amounts of pissing in the wind. Unless you want to make even more words heinously taboo and introduce social censure if not actual legislation to stamp out the usage you don't like, I suppose. Getting over it might be the better option.

And to be clear I don't care for the word 'woke' either; the term 'PC' described the same phenomena in two fewer letters, although those initials were over-subscribed. I still think 'loony left' is the most self-explanatory and apposite term for what it represents.

[The Crumb]

What the fuck are you doing here then!?

You can do those things if you like, but when you're talking about language change, it might all be equal amounts of pissing in the wind. Unless you want to make even more words heinously taboo and introduce social censure if not actual legislation to stamp out the usage you don't like, I suppose. Getting over it might be the better option.

And to be clear I don't care for the word 'woke' either; the term 'PC' described the same phenomena in two fewer letters, although those initials were over-subscribed. I still think 'loony left' is the most self-explanatory and apposite term for what it represents.

And just like a PC is a social construct, we must also ask ourselves:

Is this PC just a social construct, an artificial construct of a certain type of life? And what is really going on, especially as it relates to the physical environment, is that this can become a social construct within our bodies? Or perhaps it's simply the fact that the media itself is trying to produce a narrative representation of the people around them that makes it much easier to convince us that our lives are not being lived in accordance with society and culture.

Perhaps it's worth asking what we can do about all those who feel no pain. Maybe not as a person but as an artist (and perhaps even in the presence of an artist-in-the-person!). I'm trying to get the question out there from people who don't necessarily feel pain on an emotional level or an aesthetic level, but are simply not happy with that world. But in the end it's that combination of emotions that can actually get you to write about the pain of being a person in this context.

[Brundle-Fly]

I still don't understand the ignore function on CaB. Sometimes some people on here occasionally nark me off with what they type but not to the extent to metaphorically stick my fingers in my ears and go "lalalalalala". Why on earth would I just want to read posts by people who I agree the fuck out with?

[Fambo Number Mive]

It's not about disagreeing with people more not wanting to waste time reading the posts of semi trolls, people who annoy you and fuckwits. I'm more than happy to read posts I disagree with as long as I have some semblance of respect for the person making those arguments. And some people I have on the list because their posts can be annoying when I'm not in a good mood so I  can make a decision whether to read them or not. This doesn't make the annoying people bad posters so much as sometimes irritating. I'm sure I can be an irritating poster sometimes, I know some people on here really hate the product recall posts. Although I have to say it is easy to avoid clicking on those threads if you dont like them.

[Barry Admin]

I still don't understand the ignore function on CaB. Sometimes some people on here occasionally nark me off with what they type but not to the extent to metaphorically stick my fingers in my ears and go "lalalalalala". Why on earth would I just want to read posts by people who I agree the fuck out with?

Yeah, I'd rather read discussion than endless bickering and such quite honestly; I found the recent treatment of another CC poster - over his past views - really quite unpleasant.

Most people don't even use the ignore function anyway, just as I always stated. Rather they just refer to it a lot instead.

[Brundle-Fly]

Yeah, I'd rather read discussion than endless bickering and such quite honestly; I found the recent treatment of another CC poster - over his past views - really quite unpleasant.

Most people don't even use the ignore function anyway, just as I always stated. Rather they just refer to it a lot instead.

Yes, sometimes I look at a thread started in the morning and see its gained ten pages by the afternoon and I think "Ah, I wonder what the spat is about this time?"  CaB is great, I must add.

[chveik]

got to love the marketplace of ideas, where boomer cunts get bbc documentaries instead of coupons for dignitas